Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/05/27 18:48:24
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
Found that article, its kinda longish and thus not really well suited to quoting here, so apologies for that, but the argument posited is the one that I've often argued as well: The USAF is declining in size and capability at the expense of a high-end fleet of aircraft that are ill-suited to the conflicts we've been fighting and can expect to fight in the future.
2014/05/27 18:53:04
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
Jihadin wrote: The aircraft (Comanche) program had a lot of "other avenues" of development that made into main stream Army Aviation.
Is that not the case with the F-35 as well? Pretty much everyone I know who argues in favor of the F-35 usually does so on the basis that it has all these awesome capabilities etc. as a result of its radar, avionics, etc. etc. and not because of its airframe or flight performance (except maybe the Marines who love its vtol capabilities). Given that these systems are largely already developed, and not a function of the F-35 airframe but rather avionics components that are able to be modified and/or replaced, wouldn't it make sense to take the capabilities found in the avionics, radar, sensors, etc. and port them over to legacy platforms that would be easier to push into production and already have logistics and training pipelines in place?
I can recall Seaward and I arguing back and forth about this one on a previous thread, and his argument was basically to the effect of "The F-35 doesn't need to be fast or agile or able to dodge a missile, etc. because the capabilities it presents make these metrics of combat aircraft performance outmoded and obsolete and irrelevant to the future of air warfare." Well, if thats the case, why do we need the airframe at all?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/27 19:09:51
2014/05/27 19:15:48
Subject: Re:The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, if thats the case, why do we need the airframe at all?
Maybe because it's better to have a human pilot within these technologies? (I'm assuming you're referring to advance to UAV?)
No, I meant in the sense of, why continue funding the 'F-35' when all the capability is evidently inherent to pieces of hardware that are theoretically interchangeable with F-16s and F-15s?
2014/05/27 20:23:08
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
Right, thats also pretty much the argument posited in the linked article (written by someone who I would argue is qualified to discuss the topic given his credentials), though it also points out that the likely scenario in which we would utilize the F-35 (kicking in the door on China) is perhaps the mission that the F-35 is least suited for given the airframes limitations and the geopolitical and strategic realities of the region.
2014/05/28 12:04:24
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
Jihadin, the economic ties argument holds no water really, history has shown us time and time again that economic ties, even economic integration, is NOT a barrier to war. Europes economy, prior to BOTH world wars (especially prior to world war 1) was more closely tied together than ours and China's is today. We know how that turned out.
2014/05/28 14:09:14
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
Yeah, wheres the Seaward signal, I want to hear his take.
Medium - regarding the article, I highly doubt the F-35 will ever be operated from an austere airfield. The aircrafts maintenance requirements would make it difficult to service properly (I dont even think the Harrier was able to operate from austere airfields, and from what I understand the Harrier was a more robust and less sophisticated piece of kit), and the amount of money we have invested in them, let alone the potential for compromised security, makes it a risky proposition, imagine the blowback if F-35s had been at Camp Bastion instead of Harriers?
2014/05/28 15:25:41
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
Seaward, where exactly do the expansion limitations of legacy airframes come in to play? Aside from available space (something which there would presumably be workarounds for) and weight considerations (which again, there would presumably be workarounds for... considering how the Hornet became the Superhornet (might as well be a different plane), and the Eagle became the Strike Eagle (just made the same plane bigger), etc.)
In regards to the rest of your argument, I'm still in the 'meh' category, though I get that you're a better authority on the subject, I still question some of your logic on the matter. For example, the Mach 2 thing... wouldn't the ability to do Mach 2 be an asset for a *strike* fighter? Stealth does not equal invisible, we know that the enemy will be able to scramble air defenses if we're penetrating their airspace (and considering the likely adversary they're being designed to combat is China, I highly doubt we're going to be entirely able to neutralize them in advance of such a mission), wouldn't you want the capability to ingress/egress as quickly as possible? Beyond that, consider their range for a moment, surely we would have difficult doing deep penetration missions over contested airspace (again, we cannot rely on a Gulf War situation where we completely destroy an opponents air defense capability on day one), we sure as hell wont be flying tankers in to refuel them in such a situation...
I just cannot see the F-35 being practical, and the idea of raiding the program for developments that can be pulled for use in recapitalizing the existing fleet and/or purchasing new upgraded airframes while we develop new airframes that can take better advantage of those technologies than those legacy airframes seems more effective, practical, and more solid than relying solely on the F-35 program.
Note, I do not advocate completely axing the project. The Marines need their planes (although, I sincerely doubt that they're going to find the F-35 to be the right plane for the job), our allies need their planes as well, but I think we could benefit from scaling back our planned purchases and going to the high-low mix that was advocated in the article. Realistically, we (the USAF) do not NEED a fleet of 1700 jack-of-all-trades-ballistic-missile-tracking-super-stealthy-close-air-support-air-superiority-strike-fighter-superplanes, particularly when they cost that much and still leave us with some obvious capability gaps. I acknowledge that there ARE situations where we will need jack-of-all-trades-ballistic-missile-tracking-super-stealthy-close-air-support-air-superiority-strike-fighter-superplanes, but not 1700 of them, and if we're determined to successfully fight an air campaign the way we have in the recent past, all those additional capabilities that we're paying through the nose for become unnecessary and redundant within a few days or weeks. At that point, legacy platforms like the A-10, F-15, F-16, F-18, etc. become just as viable, capable, effective, and efficient (if not moreso) at performing the necessary missions for the duration of the campaign (service life issues aside, but if we're talking about purchasing new airframes anyway, then its a moot point).
The Marines like VTOL aircraft. The Marines are weird like that. The Navy lets them have VTOL aircraft as long as they promise to keep running a few squadrons of real planes to supplement carrier air wings.
I never really understood that, specifically the 'as long as they promise' part. Couldn't the Navy just as easily cut the Marines budget back a tad and provide those additional squadrons itself and leave the Marines to their VTOL thing?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/28 15:26:55
2014/05/28 16:19:33
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
chaos0xomega wrote: Seaward, where exactly do the expansion limitations of legacy airframes come in to play? Aside from available space (something which there would presumably be workarounds for) and weight considerations (which again, there would presumably be workarounds for... considering how the Hornet became the Superhornet (might as well be a different plane), and the Eagle became the Strike Eagle (just made the same plane bigger), etc.)
It's worth noting the Super Hornet is a different plane. It was called the Super Hornet to get Congress to sign off on it more easily as an interim solution, but it's not a Hornet, just with extra stuff. It's a different airframe. It's based on the Hornet, but it's bigger, heavier, and has some noticeable structural/planform differences.
Yup, I even stated it might as well be a different plane, though I suppose that statement can be interpreted to mean that it is the same plane.
Limitations can come from anywhere. Space and weight are big deals; so is power, software compatibility, etc. Put it this way: try installing a modern nVidia GPU into a desktop PC from, say, 1995. You'll end up rebuilding the entire thing just to get it to work. You can't just slot in a modern GPU; you'd need a modern motherboard. You'd need modern memory to run on that motherboard. You'd need a modern power supply. The list goes on. If you keep the case but replace everything inside of it, that's not really what you set out to do. When it comes to integrating avionics into aircraft, it's an incredibly apt analogy, even if the space and weight are available.
While I see what you're getting at, I take some issue with the analogy because all legacy platforms currently in service, to my knowledge, have been (and still are being) upgraded, in some cases substantially. So while the 'case' might be from 1995, you end up with a 'motherboard' from 2003, and 'RAM' from 2009, etc. While I'm sure that some aspects of the F-35s advancements cannot be ported, I would think (actually I know, considering they are already backfeeding some of those advancements into legacy platforms) that many of them could, particularly if the boys at Boeing, etc. are trying to steal some business away from LockMart with new upgraded builds of legacy airframes.
No, Mach 2 wouldn't make much sense on a strike fighter. Mach 2 makes sense on single mission interceptors, but we don't build those anymore. You burn a lot of fuel getting that fast. You do not have a lot of sustained flight time at Mach 2. Guys who fly Mach 2-capable fighters their entire careers would measure the time actually spent at or above that speed throughout the entire course of their career in minutes.
The USAF seemed to prefer the high-speed penetration/tactical/strike fighter/bomber design back in the Cold War days so I would think the concept has some merit, similarly the F-15E remains capable of performing that exact mission.
As far as range goes, the F-35 has better range than the aircraft it's replacing.
The F-18 and A-10 (and I believe the AV-8), yes. As I understand it its about 50/50 on the F-16 depending on how you're comparing them, but now that the F-35 is expected to also replace part of the F-15 fleet given the F-22s cancellation and the lack of an apparent alternative, theres a bit of a shortfall there.
(And, as an aside, the F-35 is already part of the high-low paradigm the Air Force has been using for decades. The F-22's the high slot, the F-35's the low slot. The F-22 is the 5th gen F-15, the F-35 is the 5th gen F-16.)
Yes, except that the cuts to the F-22 mean that there isn't enough 'high' and in this case it seems that even the low is 'higher' than any reasonable competitor will be for quite some time.
What do the F-16 or F-18 bring to the table that the F-35 doesn't? My answer is "nothing," while the F-35 brings huge advantages over either of them. They can't do anything the F-35 can't do. Conversely, the F-35's got longer legs, better survivability, will easily smoke either of them in an air-to-air scenario (and before either is aware the F-35's there), and can accomplish with equal ease all the strike-oriented missions they're currently tasked with.
Well for one thing they cost a fraction of the price to purchase, operate, and maintain, and are more applicable and more realistically suited to the conflicts we are likely to face, rather than the conflicts we seemingly *want* the F-35 to face. Beyond that, it can be argued that the actual benefits derived from the F-35 over legacy platforms (in terms of in situ/real world application) are so miniscule that the cost is unjustified. On top of that, given fiscal reality (as the article pointed out, did you read it at all? You're spending more times addressing my points rather than addressing the article directly, which is what I would prefer for you to do, since that was written by someone who comes from a similar realm of expertise as you do), the F-35 has in actuality resulted in a smaller and less capable Air Force, a trend that is expected to continue for quite some time more, which I suppose is where the difference in opinion may come in, as the Navy (and I suppose Marines) have more to gain from the F-35, and have sacrificed less/maintained more capability in its pursuit than the AF has (to the point that, as I understand it, the USAF is actually in violation of some congressionally mandated force/mission requirements).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/28 16:21:23
2014/05/28 19:30:52
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
The USAF seemed to prefer the high-speed penetration/tactical/strike fighter/bomber design back in the Cold War days so I would think the concept has some merit, similarly the F-15E remains capable of performing that exact mission.
Yes, it did. First it preferred high altitude penetration, then the U-2 got shot down and we realized Russian missile ceilings made that tactic suicidal. So they switched to high speed, low altitude penetration. Then we figured out VLO (stealth), and that's been the preferred method since. And for multiple good reasons. For one, we're the leader in that field, whereas we're certainly not with speed. Everybody else can go as fast as we can, so there's no room for technological advantage. For another...well, as I just said, there's no room for technological advantage. We pushed both speed and altitude until we couldn't push any farther, and then the counters to them caught up. We're not there with stealth yet, so it's the way to go until the countermeasures catch up.
Lets speak hypothetically, if tomorrow the anti-VLO/stealth radar technology were to suddenly proliferate (and thus deny the F-35 of one of its strongest advantages), taking into consideration all of the likely side-effects on air combat that would occur as a result, would the F-35 still continue to be a worthwhile investment (in your opinion)? While I doubt we'll see this occur for at least another 10 years, more likely 20 I think, its not out of the realm of the possibility, as I *know* that the capability already exists, whether or not our likely adversaries have that capability however is beyond me.
And no, the F-35 doesn't have the range of the F-15, at least when the F-15's running with tanks. That doesn't really concern me or the Air Force, though, because the F-35 isn't taking over the pure air superiority role.
So long as we still have available F-22s... there really aren't that many of them, thankfully the current geo-political climate doesn't require that anyway.
I agree that there isn't enough 'high,' but there's nothing to be done about that now. We still have more F-22s than the Russians are ever likely to have fatbat T-50s or the Chinese will ever have wtfdoesthisthingactuallydo J-20s.
I'll refrain from slamming either plane, while I agree with you generally, I would hate for it turn out that either one was actually a quality piece of hardware that gave us a run for our money.
True now, yes. We'll be saying the same about the F-35 in 40 years when someone's inevitably arguing we should just upgrade it instead of procuring the X-Wing or whatever.
Hopefully sometime in the next 40 years someone figures out how to make a great quality aircraft at a reasonable price.
I don't think so. Again, we don't lose capability with the F-35. It's not an inferior choice for third world jihadi hunting when compared with the Hornet or Viper.
No, but the operating cost of the F-35 to go hunt Jihad Joe is a lot higher than it is with the F-16 or F-18, and you're paying mostly for capabilities and functionality that is entirely unnecessary to performing that mission. Thats why the article proposes what I like to think of as a four tier system:
1. High-High: F-22
2. High-Low: F-35
3. Low-High: Cheaper Legacy airframes (F-15, etc.)
4. Low-Low: Cheaper Legacy airframes (A-10, F-16, light attack, etc.)
Basically the idea would be to keep a small proportion of the really high end air combat platforms and supplement them heavily by much cheaper platforms. I really don't see (in a perfect world scenario) what the issue would be with such a system. You wouldn't necessarily want to send F-35s out to sortie over Afghanistan/Iraq anyway, again paying a lot for capabilities that are wholly unnecessary for the mission and at the end of the day you're just unnecessarily wasting the airframes service life when there is potential for it to do something more worthwhile.
And that's going to be my most profound point of disagreement. Even in situations where its survivability, its very low observability, its ability to network better than anything else we have, its workload reduction features all don't matter, it's still a ridiculously easy aircraft to strike with. It's simply better at putting bombs in specific patches of mud than everything it's replacing.
Whats the actual % gain in performance from that though? Are we arguing the difference of centimeters or something actually substantial and meaningful?
It's not anything new
It was only published this month...
The Air Force has some issues with their SEAD fleet (or lack thereof), no question about it, but the notion that we can keep updating aircraft that are at the end of their life cycles because we're always going to be fighting in Afghanistan from here on out and won't realistically need anything more advanced than what we flew in Vietnam just doesn't truck with how we design and acquire aircraft.
I think the point is more to be prepared for a broader spectrum of operations and levels of intensity, rather than we're only ever going to fight low intensity conflicts (or to be prepared only to fight a modern air war against a peer adversary which doesn't yet exist). Its not like its being argued that we divest entirely of the F-22/F-35.... beyond that I would argue we need to take a step back and re-evaluate our acquisitions process and what our priorities and needs actually are.
Furthermore, he's just dead wrong on that approach saving money in the long run. It's not just developing and then buying the plane that costs money; it's keeping it flying, keeping it based somewhere, etc. You want to save money, you either cut the F-35 completely and don't build anything else to replace it, or you cut the F-16, the legacy Hornet, and the A-10, and buy the F-35. You do not buy fewer F-35s and keep everything else, because that's the most expensive option. You're keeping six logistics ecosystems up and running instead of trimming down to one.
Once upon a time, six 'logistics ecosystems' would have been considered a very small number, at least for the USAF, though I believe this was also the case with the Navy. I've yet to find anything that indicated that this incurred additional costs and logistics problems (for the Air Force, I know carrier maintenance crews had issues due to space limitations aboard ship).
2014/05/29 13:54:27
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
EmilCrane wrote: I've never understood why the US didn't just go full F22? The F22 worked, it was a finished plane with proven capabilities. Why spend all this money on another "almost but not quite as good" F22? I know the F35 has a tactical bomber role but surely the F22 can fill that role without designing a whole new air frame for it.
Beyond the inability to export it, the F-22 simply wasn't designed for that mission. Most of the discussion about making it air-to-mud capable centered around enlargening the fuselage and giving it a delta wing so it could carry more ordnance.
3. We are still using the same under wing jamming pod as we used in Korea (seriously). We have a serious electronic attack deficiency. So much that even in the face of current budget cuts we're still fast tracking a replacement.
The Growler most certainly is not, or rather it won't be once the NGJ becomes operational.
I'd like to see a lot of aircraft carriers phased out in favor of submarines and potentially militarized satellites. Of course the whole "you can't militarize space" laws might be a problem there.
While I would love this (the aircraft carrier part particularly) the reality is that we're not at a point where that is really feasible (if we want to maintain our current posture and dominance). Anti-carrier technologies and doctrines are rapidly advancing (though I don't believe they have yet reached a point where carriers have become a lost cause), slowly pushing them into the realm of floating high value targets, but as of yet there has been no breakthrough technology that can offer us the same capabilities. Until the day that we actually lose a modern supercarrier, or we figure out a way to fly missions to anywhere in the world from CONUS (or other overseas bases) in a more cost and time effective manner, carriers are here to stay.
Seaward wrote: That may be the future plan, but that's "decades" future rather than day after tomorrow future. Drones are good at a lot, but air-to-air and complex threat environments aren't on that list.
I've heard it said that the F-35 will be the last manned fighter. That it will last a few decades and its replacement will be some kind of drone/AI aircraft. Is that plausible?
Plausible, yes, that doesn't make it likely. The AF is already soliciting 6th generation concepts, thus far all the concept artwork I've seen featured cockpits, though I think it likely that they will pursue an 'optionally manned' design.
Jihadin wrote: Ensis I believe is a drone pilot. That multiple screen for a 360 view is distracting. Seaward the pilot for fix wing and I was a crew chief for rotary. I rather have unrestricted view instead of the "break" between screens. I want to go with two maybe three more generation of computerization to get the effect of a total cockpit screen one can sit in at a desk with no lag from aircraft to pilot on ground
Also Ensis I'm calling you out. Have you looked into USAjob. If not I come down from Gig Harbor and nut check you
Seaward wrote: It works better than others. There's nothing I'd rather fly for a strike; the only thing I'd rather fly on an air superiority hop would be an F-22, and if I confirmed what I suspect about the AN/APG-81, maybe not even that.
Serious question here: if the F-35 is better for strike missions and potentially better for air superiority then why does the F-22 exist? Do we just keep them because we already built a bunch of them before realizing that the F-35 made them obsolete, or is your preference for the F-35 in the air superiority role just your personal opinion that other pilots wouldn't share?
I can't speak for Seaward, but I don't believe the F-35 really will be better in the air superiority role. Most of the people that talk it up in that function are basing it on the assumption that the F-35s capabilities will be unmatched/uncountered (i.e. the stealth aspect coupled with its radar/sensor capability will allow for enhanced BVR air combat, etc.), and that the seemingly current air combat paradigm of missile slinging will remain the status quo. We made similar assumptions in the past (see also: Vietnam) which turned out not to be true, much to our detriment. Granted, I admit that the technologies of the day had not yet matured to a point where the theory was really practicable, but the way I see technological advancement (in the military realm) is as a back and forth along a continuum. For every new technological development there is usually an attempt by someone else to counter it, so while I do think, for some amount of time Seawards assessment on the future of air combat will be accurate, I do believe that the pendulum will swing back in the opposite direction (as it seemingly almost always does), and when that occurs I think the F-35 will be woefully unprepared and ill-equipped, and I think that reversal will occur sooner than most people think.
A better analogy than computer hardware is probably software: when you write a new piece of software the code is probably very elegant and it works nicely. You can add in new features later and still have a working product, but each new addition makes things more complicated and requires new workarounds to fix the problems you encounter. Eventually you have a tangled mess of code that hardly anyone understands, and each upgrade means spending huge amounts of time just trying to figure out how all the relevant pieces work and what the new upgrade might break. And at that point it's better to just spend a bit more time and effort and write a whole new piece of software from scratch, with better performance and fresh upgrade room available.
I like this analogy, a lot actually, but then I'm forced to point out something like Eve Online, a game originally developed 11 years ago which is still kicking today, that has been continually upgraded (both hardware and software wise) since it was first released, and functions and behaves absolutely nothing like it did when it first came to existence. Despite those upgrades, and the expectation of resulting code bloat, the code remains relatively streamlined, in fact some of the upgrades actually resulted in a DECREASE in code complexity while still enhancing game performance and capabilities, etc. Yes, there are still some issues in the game, a few of which, for the time being at least, have no readily apparent workarounds and which the game developers (and thus the players) are apparently stuck with.
My point here isn't that you're wrong, rather it is that its possible, with a smartly managed program, to upgrade a legacy platform and still have it perform to a high standard. Obviously, as you pointed out, there are limitations to this, particularly as it applies to aircraft, and I wouldn't expect an upgraded F-15/16/18/what-have-you to outmatch an F-22 or F-35, but I would expect that it is possible to make it well more than 'good enough' for what we actually NEED, and considering fiscal realities, that should be our priority right now. Beyond that, think outside the box a little bit, an upgraded legacy platform can mean a lot of things. The Superhornet for example, while not at all the same as a Hornet, derived much of its design from it, and thus R&D and production costs were drastically lowered while providing the Navy with a significantly improved (and superior) aircraft.
Whether it should, however, is another matter entirely.
I think that's unlikely.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Once upon a time (long LONG LONG ago) the Russkies actually built a few quality fighters, they're eventually going to figure out how to again. Besides that, if the debate is centered around the concept that missile slinging is the future of air combat, then I do believe the Russians have an edge over us in that department, don't they? While our recent missile development has certainly caught up (if not surpassed) anything the Russians have produced, historically I believe they typically had us beat there.
The operating cost for the F-35 isn't going to be higher than the F-16 or the F-18 were at the start of their life cycles. Development and acquisition cost is obviously higher, but I bet if we combined the development/acquisition costs of all the planes the F-35's replacing, it wouldn't look like that much of a boondoggle.
I've heard both sides being argued (that the F-35 has higher/lower operating costs), at this point I'm not sure who to believe, but given how much more sophisticated and less robust the F-35 design seemingly is, I'm inclined to think that its going to have higher lifetime costs.
And the Air Force is keeping F-15s in service, while the Navy's keeping Super Hornets in service.
The Navy is also buying NEW superhornets... the USAF isn't buying new F-15s. The F-15 fleet has been grounded a few times due to structural defects and just general aging (note: F-15E doesn't have these issues as they are newer airframes, but its not the same plane), and increasing numbers of them are being retired, and with sequestration/budget issues that retirement process is being accelerated.
Streamlining the number of different platforms we're using across the board saves money, though, and axing F-16s and legacy Hornets - not to mention the A-10 - is a cheaper alternative than keeping everything flying indefinitely without replacements on the horizon.
I agree with the last part, HOWEVER, in regards to the 'streamlining', it seems the jury is still out. I've heard a few sources from the Pentagon/USAF/USN claim that the F-35 acquisitions process actually turned out to be more expensive than if the USAF, USN, and USMC each pursued their own separate programs.
F-35 pricing is falling now that there's an ass-kicker in charge of the program on the DOD side and LRIP is getting up to speed. It's going to wind up probably right around Super Hornet costs. That's not at all a bad deal.
I would agree with you if that turns out to be the case, but I have my doubts, especially considering how successful the Superhornets program was and how cheap it was by comparison to the acquisition of a new design.
Which is why the Air Force is picking up a few A-29s for low-intensity COIN stuff, and the Navy's looking at them for special operations support. Super cheap. Far cheaper than keeping 4th gens flying. For literally anything else, the F-35's just as good or better.
Unless somethings changed recently, the AF isn't doing that anymore. The contract was scrapped and they have to redo the RFP, etc. Beyond that the USAF, evidently, isn't acquiring the planes for itself, rather its acquiring them for the Afghans.
The F-22's undoubtedly the best air superiority fighter in the world right now, and nothing in development or even on the proposal table, F-35 included, looks like it's going to change that. I think, if the current budgets and planned upgrade paths hold, the F-35 might wind up with a slight Within Visual Range edge due to it being slated for high-angle off-boresight (HOBS) missile capability that the F-22 is currently locked out of due to sequester cuts.
LordofHats wrote: I vote we make a jet fighter that launches smaller jet fighters. Lets call them Dragoons
The giant robot is optional
We did that in the Cold War (or tried it anyway), look into 'parasite fighters', FICON, and XF-85 Goblin. Also similar are the USS Akron and USS Macon, as well as the F9C Sparrowhawk.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/29 14:04:57
2014/05/29 19:11:09
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
Well, realistically, what the F-35 is really doing is effectively outsourcing/crowdsourcing the US national security, rather than directly strengthening your own. The point of Canada, Norway, or anyone else purchasing the F-35 is increased interoperability of your forces with American forces, in addition to supplementing American airpower with additional airframes flown by our allies so we can generate more sorties during coalition operations.
In other words, you should buy the F-35 because its good for America, and whats good for America is good for you.
2014/05/30 14:21:09
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
chaos0xomega wrote: I like this analogy, a lot actually, but then I'm forced to point out something like Eve Online, a game originally developed 11 years ago which is still kicking today, that has been continually upgraded (both hardware and software wise) since it was first released, and functions and behaves absolutely nothing like it did when it first came to existence. Despite those upgrades, and the expectation of resulting code bloat, the code remains relatively streamlined, in fact some of the upgrades actually resulted in a DECREASE in code complexity while still enhancing game performance and capabilities, etc. Yes, there are still some issues in the game, a few of which, for the time being at least, have no readily apparent workarounds and which the game developers (and thus the players) are apparently stuck with.
Actually, EVE is a pretty good example but for the exact opposite reason. They've had a lot of problems with trying to make new features work with the existing code, and in at least one case they had to admit that it couldn't be done because nobody understood how the relevant stuff worked anymore. And this is after spending a vast amount of effort on upgrades, probably to the point where they could have made an entirely new game if their customers had been willing to accept no updates for a while in exchange. So, like trying to upgrade an F-16 endlessly, it's a case of the existing stuff imposing some real limits on what you can do and how much it will cost. The main difference is that EVE is just a game, so if a feature can't be done or isn't practical then you just have some possibly unhappy customers, not a dead pilot.
Source for this please? I've been playing eve since pretty much the start and I don't recall this ever being the case. The only thing that comes close is the whole lag issue caused by the server load of ship inventory, player skills, implants, etc. and their database structure, which isn't a case of them not understanding, rather that being an element of the core game engine which they cannot undo without a complete overhaul. Other than that, the only real issue they've had making a new feature work is the whole walking in stations thing which consumed a lot of resources and nobody really wanted in the first place (and has turned out to be a complete dud).
1) You're spending a considerable fraction of the cost of a new F-35 to get your upgraded F-16, especially if you consider the cost of the additional R&D work to make a new F-16 upgrade (something that is already done for the F-35). Would you consider it a reasonable decision if you spend 90% of the cost for 70% of the plane? If the budget is your primary concern then you cut something else and buy good fighters, you don't settle for awful performance-per-dollar ratios just to save a little money on the total cost.
You're not going to spend 90% for 70% though, it would be more like 50% for 70%, particularly as the systems which you would be porting over to the legacy airframe have already been largely paid for (and will presumably be re-used/upgraded in future airframes as well) as part of the F-35 project, so theres a bit of a sunk cost fallacy in this argument.
2) You're still stuck with the problem of limited upgrade potential. Even if your engineers work a miracle and manage to cram everything you wanted into the F-16 despite thinking it had reached its limits you're going to have serious problems with the next round of upgrades. The F-35 will have upgrade potential available and can probably take most of it without many problems, while you're right back to a choice between buying new F-35s and spending a huge amount of money trying to upgrade your F-16s again while the performance gap gets even bigger. If you're going to have to buy the F-35s anyway (and it's really unlikely that you'll make it to the F-35's successor without needing a new fighter) you might as well do it now and avoid throwing away money on F-16 upgrades with a limited useful life.
Scrapping the F-35 and recapitalizing the existing fleet has a two-fold advantage. 1. It stops (and if you supplement with new-build fighters it actually reverses) the growing USAF fighter gap (which the F-35 won't be able to do for almost another 10 years, assuming the most recent project schedule holds true). 2. It buys us time to re-evaluate our needs
Here's a civilian example I'm more familiar with: you can get an old Cessna 150 for about $15k. It's a pretty low-end plane, but it gets the job done if you just want to fly for fun without spending too much money. Or you could get a new plane for $1-200k that will be much nicer, have much better performance, modern LCD-screen instruments, etc. But that's kind of expensive, so let's buy an old 150 and upgrade it. $10k for new instruments (and a new panel to hold them, new electrical wiring, etc), $10k to overhaul the engine (which is getting kind of old), labor costs to install everything, etc. Oh, and we don't want to be embarrassed when we take our friends flying, so let's buy a new interior and some new paint. Congratulations, now we've managed to drive up the cost to pretty close to that brand new plane, except it's still slower, only has one and a half seats, and you'd better hope your passenger is under 170 pounds or you're going to be lucky if you can carry enough fuel to make a trip around the traffic pattern. Still think it's a good idea to try to make that cheap plane into a nice one?
So heres the thing, civilian/general aviation aircraft don't have that big a difference in performance within the same general 'category'/'performance bracket' So assuming that we're comparing a stock 150 (because there are a LOT of modifications, upgrades, and variants available) to a new 162:
The 162 will have a cruise speed approx. 5 knots faster than the 150, but the 150 has a higher maximum. (112 vs 107, 118 vs 141)
The 162 will have a max takeoff weight 300 lbs less than the 150, although the same useful load. (1600 vs 1320)
The 162 will have a wing loading of 1 lb/ft^2 greater than the 150. (11 vs 10)
The 162 will have a service ceiling 1500 ft higher than the 150 (15500 vs 14000)
The main substantial difference is that the 162 has a much greater range and a much better rate of climb (both of which have been dramatically improved in 150s via some of the aforementioned upgrades, etc.). Despite this the 150 is still considered by most to be an easier aircraft to operate and fly than the 162, so while it is 'better' in terms of performance criteria, it isn't necessarily a 'better' aircraft to own, and that old beater of a 150 (assuming it still has a healthy amount of time left on it, lets assume it does to keep the analogy apples to apples) is more than 'good enough' for many peoples needs.
Now lets look at the upgrades you mentioned there... aside from the fact that most of them aren't really necessary, nor do they improve the general performance of the aircraft, a lot of the 'equivalent' upgrades for the USAF fighter fleet have already been performed (glass cockpit, engine upgrades, etc.). In other words, we've already paid for those things, and thus already have them.
Sure, but that's because the original plane had upgrade potential remaining, and they used it well. The point is that there's a limit to how long you can keep doing that and still have a viable alternative to buying a whole new plane, and there's a pretty convincing argument that we've either reached that point now or will reach it soon enough that we might as well just buy the F-35s now instead of throwing money at trying to delay the inevitable.
Except they're not the same plane, and I mean that in every sense of the term. The Superhornet is derived from the Hornet and all its associated R&D work, etc. but they have very little in common beyond a simple cosmetic similarity, and even then the Superhornet is considerably larger in every way. Regardless of the fact that it *IS* a different plane, the fact that it was derived from the Hornet meant that its development and production costs were DRASTICALLY lower than simply starting over from scratch (ala the F-35).
Beyond that, I think you underestimate the potential that existing designs have. The F-15 for example, is capable of being upgraded with thrust vectoring (see also: F-15 ACTIVE and F-15 IFCS) as well as STOL capabilities (F-15 STOL/MTD). Then theres the F-15E (which as I understand it has no replacement yet), which the Koreans upgraded to the F-15K Slam Eagle which has a rather impressive suite of features, as well as the F-15SE Silent Eagle which features low observable/stealth shaping and RAM technologies to reduce its RCS dramatically (comparable to the F-35 in its front aspect, but otherwise clearly inferior from the sides/rear/above/below, although this is claimed to be as a result on export limitations imposed by Congress, and theoretically this aspect can be improved as well), as well as the same AESA radar, datalink, and electronic warfare suite as the F-35. Oh, and (compared to the F-15E) its also lighter, faster, more fuel-efficient, has an increased range, vastly improved avionics, and an increased payload. Unfortunately, the estimated pricetag of the aircraft, although still lower than the F-35s by a good bit, is presently too high to make it attractive, although Boeing has stated that the price would drop dramatically if there was increased interest in the plane.
And then the F-16... there is the new F-16E/F block 60 which have some pretty damned impressive improvements (many of which were derived from the F-35 program), and while the USAF doesn't fly them, the ones in use by the UAE are noted to be markedly superior to previous iterations of the aircraft in both performance and capability, and actually outperformed both the F-15 and Dassault Raffaels that they were pitted against in fly-off competitions during their acquisition process), oh and those cheeky bastards have decided to upgrade them EVEN FURTHER STILL. The cost per unit (including both development and production costs, paid for entirely by the UAE)? $37.5 million, which is still 1/3rd the price of the lowest (and IMO most unrealistic) estimates of the F-35. And yes, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the Block 60 IS superior to the F-16s in the USAF inventory, and some claim it superior to even our F-15s.
Beyond the Block 60s theres also the research/test prototypes like the F-16XL (delta wing, high-efficiency supercruise, high low-speed maneuverability, 2x the payload 1.5x the range), F-16 SFW (swept forward wing), F-16 VISTA/MATV (multi-axis thrust vectoring, also btw, the basis for many of the technologies used in the F-35), F-16X Falcon 2000 (cheaper than a Superhornet, longer legs, bigger payload, higher speed, more maneuverable), F-16 LOAN (testbed for LO nozzles used on the F-35), F-16IN (more advanced than even the Block 60), etc.
Then the Superhornet, which besides NOT being replaced with the F-35, continues to be acquired by the Navy, particularly the Growler variant which has extremely advanced EWAR features beyond those of even the F-35. Theres also the Advanced Super Hornet that Seaward just mentioned, though I admittedly don't know much about.
And just for gaks and giggles, the F-4 Phantom had a couple proposed 'super' variants. One of which was the F-4X/Peace Jack which offered performance comparable to the SR-71 with the added advantage of an offensive capability that rivaled even the F-15, so much so that the USAF killed the program because of the threat it presented to the F-15 program. Another, the IAI F-4-2000 Super Phantom which could supercruise, exceeded the Hornets flight performance and capability in every way, and was similarly scrapped because it endangered sales of the F/A-18.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/30 14:22:40
2014/05/30 16:29:39
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
Still, let's all agree that the Marines have to sit quietly outside next time the adults are laying down new fighter requirements. Someone should have slapped the vice commandant who said OO what about a supersonic stealth jump jet? Right guys? Guadalcanal!
I think everyone is in agreement on this, right gents? Common ground? lol
2014/06/18 14:21:21
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
Saw it, havent watched, been too busy, videos are inconvenient :C
Though based on previous discussion, Seaward considers Pierre to be a washed-up has been know nothing (or something like that), since he's still thinking in terms of the 'last generation' and has no actual combat aviation experience himself.... or something like that...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/18 14:23:41
2014/06/18 15:14:32
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
I'm Sorry but Pierre sprey gets paid to say bullgak about anything.
He compaired the M1A2 Abrams to the m48 patton and had the patton better in every category compaired to the abrams (Except for Combat maneuverability which was a "Tie")
Well thats a perverse twist on what he actually said, why dont you tell us how you really feel?
What he actually said is that the Abrams is too big, slow, and unwieldy to effectively support the infantry and are only really useful for fighting off a soviet tank horde in the fields of eastern europe... which is for the most part true.
2014/06/18 17:02:05
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
He was loosely involved in advising Colonel Boyd during the development of the F-15, thats how the F-16 got started, because he and Boyd protested all the 'gold plating' that was going into the F-15.
2014/06/19 13:52:19
Subject: The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
chaos0xomega wrote: He was loosely involved in advising Colonel Boyd during the development of the F-15, thats how the F-16 got started, because he and Boyd protested all the 'gold plating' that was going into the F-15.
Yeah. As I said, he's not the designer of the F-15. He's barely the co-designer of the F-16.
And he and Boyd were wrong. F-16s are meat on the table for F-15s. There's a reason the F-15 has the best air-to-air kill ratio of any aircraft in history (something like 250/0); it turns out maneuverability and energy retention aren't all you need to be an effective air superiority aircraft. Avionics and BVR weapons systems play a huge role.
One could argue that they were actually correct... the F-16 ended up getting the same gold-plating type deal that the F-15 had and the final product ended up being drastically different from what they originally wanted to design. Boyd himself was, much like the F-15, disgusted with the result. Its discussed in his biography/biographies.
Abrams is 1 foot longer and wider than an M48 patton
Without the governor the Abrams can reach a top speed of 105 mph, With it it tops out on road at 45 mph. 15mph faster than the patton
During desert storm the Abrams crews were told to slow down because they were outpacing their supply chain.
The purpose of any MBT is to engauge other Tanks...
This is not WW2 the main weapon is not the machinegun anymore.
I don't believe anything you just stated was factually correct.
Hull Length of the M60 Patton (because that would be the closest equivalent of the Patton to the Abrams) - 22'-9"
Hull Length of the M1 Abrams - 26'-2"
Width of the M60 Patton - 11'-11"
Width of the M1 Abrams - 12'
Top Speed of the M1 Abrams with Governor - 45mph over improved surface
Top Speed of the M1 Abrams without Governor - 60mph over improved surface, severe damage to the drivetrain and injury to crew likely
Top Speed of the M60 Patton - 35mph over improved surface
During Desert Storm the armored formations almost outran their supply lines because nobody had anticipated how quickly they would be able to move due to a lack of resistance, not because they were unaware of what the rate of advance of an M1 Abrams was. Correlation does not equal causation.
The purpose of armor, as per the Army's own Armored Warfare Doctrine, is not to oppose enemy tanks, and even in WW2 the tanks primary weapon was not the machine gun, and in any case, for much of recent history American (and British) armor has been deployed in Iraq (and to a much more limited extent, Afghanistan) to support infantry and counterinsurgency operations, not to fight enemy armored columns. Beyond that, modern Armored Warfare Doctrine very much promotes the concept of a combined arms approach to warfare and the utilization of armored units to support infantry, as well as to utilize armor to achieve breakthrough against the enemy at a concentrated point. Besides, both the M60 and the M1 carry HE rounds specifically to handle enemy infantry
Beyond that, you ignore the fact that the Abrams is roughly 20 tons heavier than an M60 (which severely limits its ability to utilize existing road/bridge infrastructure), more logistically intensive, more expensive, and has only rarely been used by the US in the role it was actually intended for (although in those circumstances it was quite successful at it).
I'll take What is an IFV? for 200
An Infantry Fighting Vehicle? You mean those things that are typically used in units known as 'mechanized infantry' in order to help the infantry keep pace with the armored units they are typically fielded in conjunction with?
Lets continue Pierre sprey compairsons with our own versions
Lets not, so that I don't have to point out the obvious logical fallacy you have utilized which basically disqualifies the validity of your argument.
But I dunno how useful that metric is anymore. The A-10 can take a ton of punishment, but that's because it needs to. It flies low, it flies slow, it's had gakky/non-existent ECM all its life, etc. And when it does get hit, it's still a mission kill even if it doesn't go down.
During Gulf War 1 it didn't seem like they had too many issues operating in areas defended by SAM sites, provided that there were Wild Weasels around to support them. Its come up a couple times in the various memoirs I've read (mostly those of F-16 pilots mind you). In any case, that all depends, I think, on the ability to provide effective CAS from altitude which is what they would *like* the F-35 to do. Considering that 5 US operators were recently killed by a high-altitude CAS strike delivered by a B-1 a couple weeks back, supposedly due to inability of the crew to accurately determine the location of said operators, I don't put much faith in the concept. The B-1 is a multi-crew vehicle equipped with the same Sniper pod that every other coalition aircraft has. If they couldn't figure it out, what makes you think a lone F-35 pilot will be able to do the same while multitasking? A-10s and F-16s both have reported taking small arms fire while going in 'low and slow' (or as low and slow as possible in the case of the F-16), and I'm sure the same can be said for F-15E and F/A-18 crews, if the F-35 has to drop that low, I am 100% positive that the same will be said to them, they are stealthy, but that doesn't matter at all to the Mk I standard issue eyeball.
Beyond that, I've not heard of any instances where they weren't used over concerns of survivability. Publicly available information seems to indicate that, if anything, they are overused considering they have provided a number of sorties out of proportion with the actual number of airframes available/relative to other aircraft operating in theater.
Once the air was sanitized, yes. We could'v used old A-1 Skyraiders to the same effect. (And we more or less will be, once the Light Air Support program and the A-29 get back on track.)
If be 'we will be' you mean the Afghani Air Force, since the USAF has no plans to procure them for itself whatsoever, then you would be correct.
djones520 wrote: The fact that it was used so much more per airframe then every other aircraft just shows how great it is Seaward. If it wasn't such an exceptional CAS platform, they wouldn't be using it at a 2:1 ration per airframe then they do every other aircraft.
Actually, I think use/inventory ratio is still topped by the Harrier.
And it also depends entirely on how you're generating your numbers. Non-E F-15s are considered CAS-capable, for example, but they didn't get a ton of CAS time. The B-1B also gets factored into that, kind of hilariously.
If by hilariously, you mean to the detriment of our own personnel, then yes. Also the B-52 and the B-2 have been used to provide CAS strikes in the past.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/19 13:53:03
2014/06/19 15:12:26
Subject: Re:The Comanche and the Albatross - F-35 discussion, yes its that time of the month
If be 'we will be' you mean the Afghani Air Force, since the USAF has no plans to procure them for itself whatsoever, then you would be correct.
That's incorrect.
Cite your sources please, as I double checked this from a few different sources just to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering. The current plan is to acquire 20 aircraft for the Afghani AF.
